User talk:Dennis Fuller

Welcome!

Hello, Dennis Fuller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Hi Dennis, I see no one has welcomed you to wikipedia yet, so welcome. I just want to say you are making some good edits on the AIG page as well as bringing up good points on the talk page. Good job on making the article better and less POV. David D. (Talk) 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David! I am looking forward to working with other wikipedians as yourself. You seem like a fair minded individual even though we will probably have differing opinions on the topics we are editing. Thanks for your patience with me missing that obvious source to AiG's blaming of current day racism… not sure how I missed that one! DennisF 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to think that a difference in opinion will not stop constructive edits. If anything it often improve the articles in the long run. I usually TRY to take a step back and see it from both sides. Of course passions can run high too, that is life. David D. (Talk) 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salary

I just cut that section out completely. It adds nothing to the article. David D. (Talk) 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I've tried to remove it twice and it has been put back each time. DennisF 20:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bye

"I award The Resilient Barnstar to the editors at Answers in Genesis for overcoming their differences and collaborating toward a better article." Presented by Durova 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go. David D. (Talk) 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I just needed a few days to cool off!

Great, it can get frustrating but your edits are always well reasoned which is half the battle to reaching consensus. Actually, I find AA to be quit an interesting editor. The stance she takes on the AiG talk page is almost in contrast to her stance on the Jonathon Sarfati talk page. I have not really figured out the contradictions. For example, she fights against OR on the JS page whereas she is contributing what most agree is OR on the AiG page. Her position of AiG seems quite critical, yet her position on Sarafati is quite favourable. This suggests her edits are well meaning unless there is an anti Ham agenda from the Sarafati camp that is not well known? David D. (Talk) 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall the anon editor or AA saying that they support AiG but are troubled by the salaries they pay and they want to draw attention to it. Maybe they think they can influence AiG's policies, I don't know. I find this attitude to be similar to that of other church goers that seem to get upset when their pastors are compensated better than they are.

It'll be interesting to see how this RfC plays out. AA seems to be respecting Durova for now but I still think AA will not totally remove her edits without an administrator having to block her. DennisF 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, i had not seen it from that angle before. Personally i agree that the salaries of ALL CEO's are out of control. But that is a different issue and with respect to the norm AiG cannot be faulted. Certainly wikipedia is not the right place to be making these types editorial comments. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting new angle here. I have not followed AA's spat with other editors in detail but it appears she works at AiG and is married to a prominent AiG spokesperson in Australia. Anyway, that was not my reason for dropping by, rather I wanted to deliver your hard earned barnstar from Durova. Normally i find these things a bit tacky but in your cases it was well earned. David D. (Talk) 15:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I laughed at the accusation but when I dug into the evidence, their charges against AA seem valid. A while back, I posted a comment on AA's user page and when she removed it, she forgot to log in and I could see her IP address. I ran a WHOIS on the IP address and it came back with Milton, Australia. I found out that Milton is a 17 kilometer drive from Acacia Ridge which is where AiG-Autralia's office is. If what we are suspecting is true, then AA's vigorous defense of Sarfati and attack of the salaries made by AiG-US makes sense. Maybe there is a large disparity in salaries between the two offices and we are just seeing the expression of that frustration. And here I was suspicious of AA actually being Jennifer Warner… DennisF 17:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sharing the wealth could well be a reason for the cash cow section on the AiG page. Are AiG USA and Australia relatively independant? I think they were both started by Ham but he does not seem to have much to do with the Australian branch and their original name was not AiG. If they are independant that would explain the resources not being shared. David D. (Talk) 17:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from the "cash cow" anon user several weeks ago that speaks volumes in light of our new knowledge. Again, a WHOIS of this IP address lands us at an ISP with an office 17kms from AiG-AU.

"As a Christian, and a YEC, I am ashamed of how Ham is taking advantage of others, and call him out to not become the next Jim Bakker. 58.162.255.242 23:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)"

I don't know for certain, but after spending a lot of time pouring over AiG's financial data, I believe AiG-US and AiG-AU are financially independent. DennisF 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David/Dennis, note that I was toning down the 'bee in your bonnet' POV of anon while retaining the sourced content in a NPOV fashion (even if we disagree with how that is expressed, Dennis). In both instances, my edits here and the Sarfati article, the common factor is that I was insisting on proper sourcing and attributes for any claims made. It is not enough on either article to say some unknown people said an unsubstantiated rumour (ironic, no?). It is another to post properly sourced information (especially with backing from multiple sources) rather than censoring it. On both articles, I supported including content that might be considered by some negative and by others positive. For example, see this section, for some reason dropped by the originator. Things like that are overlooked because of the constant harassment violations. And that's the problem with bullying. Once a few start it, bandwagoning tends to follow and graffiti multiplies. agapetos_angel 06:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI/Puppetry

You are being accused by user:FeloniousMonk as being my sock or meat puppet. You can make a direct answer here and/or provide evidence here. Thanks agapetos_angel 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since I am under the impression that you are not a sockpuppet, I highly recommend that you give evidence so that you don't get wrongly accused. JoshuaZ 19:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Museum

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Creation Museum. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Please make your case on the talk page.--Filll 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I was hoping my second revert with stick and other people would see that I am not adding any material. Hopefully we can get this sorted out in the talk page. DennisF 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't count on it, DF. You have been tagged and labeled, and your future at WP is bleak. There are certain admins just waiting for you to make a tiny little slip -- even if they're doing the same thing, only magnified -- so they can pounce and ban you. They are currently baiting you, and it's just a matter of time now. (And just to assure certain admins who I am sure are reading this, I am not naming anyone or accusing any particular admin of anything at all -- just some friendly banter on a Talk page, that's all. Thanks.) --profg 15:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the whisper campaign Bush used against McCain. Probably a big fan of Rove, aren't you? Oh well; on a serious note, you sure are doing a great job at trolling. I'm inpressed. No really. Jim62sch 22:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Dennis Fuller on anything, but he's been civil, has not engaged in edit warring, and asks questions. The 3RR issue is minor once he stopped. Others could get a clue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never did commit 3RR. I stopped after the second revert. I was hopping that other editors would look closer at the text that was being inserted and recognize it as WP:OR and stop undo my reverts. The museum may very well have a mislabeled exhibit, but it's not the editors option to make that analysis in the article based on a picture from AiG's website. We need a reliable source to quote and if that source is available then I have no problem with putting the information in the article. DennisF 12:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested

Your input is requested here. Thank you. --profg 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your comments to the above mentioned AfD. The discussion has already been closed and archived as "no consensus", which defaults to "keep". - Crockspot 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]